So… scientist, or not? His resume can speak for itself.

The other link I posted provided eight endorsements from doctors, presumably also having some knowledge of the subject matter.

[Maximilian] “I am also tired of dealing with relentless assaults on women’s rights and science.”

Three of the above endorsements were women.

[Maximilian] “Who is or is not a human person worthy of protection is not a scientific question, as I mentioned in the full version of what you quoted.”

Then, is your answer to the question of who is a human person scientific, or not scientific?

None of that difference is captured in calling a zygote “human life”. And that was my point. Apparently, it was rather effective, because Mike ceased to call zygotes human life, and instead preferred to call it a “human being”.

Yes; that is the argument. And hence zygotes are much different than any other human cells, including the cells in one’s hair. That was my point.

Craig: I believe the comment about being a “science denier” refers specifically to your remarks about hair cells being “alive” and “human” and therefore equivalent to zygotes, or embryos.

I asserted no such thing. The initial argument was that zygotes are “human life”, and that they should therefore be protected. I can name any number of things that are “human life”. There are differences between zygotes and human hair, but none of them are captured by referring to either as “human life”.

Craig: This, you must admit, is just a lame argument. Furthermore, it has been refuted so many times, by so many people, in so many different ways, I think folks here on FT are just tired of expending time and energy dealing with it.

Understandable, but I am also tired of dealing with relentless assaults on women’s rights and science. Hopefully, you will also be understanding of my tiredness.

Craig: When you begin to have developing human beings showing up in your hair, your argument will make sense–not until.

That shouldn’t matter. After all, isn’t the argument that the zygotes are human beings as they are? Not just potential human beings. Hence, if we were to accept this argument, they should be judged as they are, not what they may or may not become.

JDD: Except for this guy:

The individual you refer to has a B.S. degree in chemistry. Moreover, it is beside the point. Who is or is not a human person worthy of protection is not a scientific question, as I mentioned in the full version of what you quoted.

Except for this guy:

http://www.sfuhl.org/h_about_author.htm

And:

http://www.sfuhl.org/endorsements.htm

This, you must admit, is just a lame argument. Furthermore, it has been refuted so many times, by so many people, in so many different ways, I think folks here on FT are just tired of expending time and energy dealing with it.

Thus the remark about science. Your “hair” comment reveals a lack of knowledge, not only of pro-life writings, but of basic scientific facts. When you begin to have developing human beings showing up in your hair, your argument will make sense–not until.

Please recall that the discussion was about IVF clinics selling embryos, not about selling stem cells. You can buy and sell stem cells on the Internet. There is no need for some kind of black market.

In order to lend credence to your theory that “[e]mbryonic stem cell research (ESCR) profits all the IVF clinics that can generate a new revenue stream by selling ‘the leftovers,’” it seems to me you have to give some evidence that IVF clinics have indeed sold embryos, or plan to sell embryos, or could make money selling embryos. Instead, your story is about someone accused of “obtaining placental material through his mid-wife/stem cell treatment clinic.”

That won’t work. There are lower hanging fruits for private companies, which will yield more short-term benefit than the long-term potential of embryonic stem cell research.

Artaban: What about research funded illegally or internationally?

Why would anyone fund research illegally? That would defeat the very purpose of research – to come up with cures that can be sold. What you cite is not research, it’s not even treatment, it’s pure quackery. But to want to shut down embryonic stem cell research over fraud is like shutting down Pfizer over fraud committed by others.

You need only look at Mike’s comments, if you deny the existence of people who think that research on pluripotent stem cells is useless.

Mike: Somehow I do not see you as a fortune teller. We cannot know.

Then neither do you, though you fairly authoritatively pronounced that pluripotent stem cells would yield no cures.

Mike: There is nothing logical about criticism that only counts if the scope is narrowed to the hair’s breath of single cell human life.

Which contains orders of magnitude more cells than a fertilized egg, let me point out.

Mike: But you blow smoke you do not argue logically.

Correct, that was my response to something asserted without evidence. I can either posit a counterclaim (with or without evidence), or deny the claim. I choose the latter.

Mike: I never imagined you as a science denier and believe you know this is smoke. Max, you are only trolling. You’re better than that.

What point of science did I deny? That a fertilized egg is a human person worthy of protection – something not believed by actual scientists, but only by religious people who purport to speak for scientists, something which is not actually a matter of science?